The Official Democratic Bloodbath Thread

[Secretly Space Jesus 670]

Right. And I knew a staunch Republican who kidnapped, raped and murdered a girl.

 

So through anecdotal evidence, we can now assume that many Republicans are rapists and murderers, right? Isn't that how anecdotal evidence works?

 

There'd be a facepalm jpeg at the end of this, but I'm really not interested enough to go find one. Suffice it to say the notion that all, many, some, or even any "Libs" tend to be "butt-hurt" (which continues to be a phrase I only associate with gay-bashing morons for reasons that should be fairly obvious) when their guy loses based on your experiences with one teacher who disagreed with you about one debate performance is fairly silly.

 

Really, all your story established is that you had a teacher once who disagreed with you about politics and, if your story is to be believed as 100% true, that both you and your teacher are idealogues.

[Trey Time 186]

Right. And I knew a staunch Republican who kidnapped, raped and murdered a girl.

 

So through anecdotal evidence, we can now assume that many Republicans are rapists and murderers, right? Isn't that how anecdotal evidence works?

 

There'd be a facepalm jpeg at the end of this, but I'm really not interested enough to go find one. Suffice it to say the notion that all, many, some, or even any "Libs" tend to be "butt-hurt" (which continues to be a phrase I only associate with gay-bashing morons for reasons that should be fairly obvious) when their guy loses based on your experiences with one teacher who disagreed with you about one debate performance is fairly silly.

 

Really, all your story established is that you had a teacher once who disagreed with you about politics and, if your story is to be believed as 100% true, that both you and your teacher are idealogues.

 

Wow, way to take that completely the wrong way.

[Fultz4thewin 2,464]

Well its a good thing that all of the Bushies are out or are being forced to change now isn't it? I was happy as hell O'Donnell beat Castle because I want all the dip****s pre-2008 gone too. If this new wave of conservatives turns into the Neo-cons of the Bush Era then they can go to hell too. The problem is that nobody is truly changing, they just get caught up in whatever rhetoric that will keep them in power But I fundamentally agree with the Tea Party in their belief to reduce government as much as possible and cut spending immensely. Defense, Entitlements, everything. I don't know if we should cut spending. Government spending plays a large part in a healthy economy. More logical spending would help.

 

Also, Palin RAN a whole state, and won an election (for governor) so I think she knows a little about political nuances. None of that proves she understands political nuances. Success =/= intelligenceMore than 99% of the people who call her dumb. im not following your point in this sentence Obama had no executive experience and is arguably the worst Commander in Chief since FDR I'd like to know how you came to this conclusion., and his agenda just got dealt a serious hammerblow from the American populace who are sick of him. People aren't sick of him, people are sick of partisan bickering rather than effective solutions for problems

 

And if Palin is a moronNot a moron, just more of a celebrity than a leader, then Joe Biden is mentally handicapped, because the things that come out of that man's mouth are about as idiotic as you can imagine a politician would say . His gaffes were worse than Palin's but the media was so hell bent on demonizing her that they let it slide.

[Fultz4thewin 2,464]

Wow, way to take that completely the wrong way.

 

Trey, you're out of your element. Just stop.

[Secretly Space Jesus 670]

Given that your point was ostensibly "I've noticed lots of Libs are like this. Here's an anecdote without context that proves it", I really didn't.

 

Like I said: I knew a Republican who killed a girl. But it would be both wrong and ridiculous for me to use that anecdote as justification for a "I've noticed that lots of Republicans are murderers and rapists" opinion.

 

Anecdotal evidence is nearly always useless, and it is always useless when being used like this while discussing politics because it will invariably enforce the stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid notion that every issue is yes/no, white/black, night/day, when a pretty basic understanding of reality demonstrates that 10 people will have 10 opinions. Even most yes/no questions in politics have more than 2 answers.

[Osprey 199]

To be successful, you must be intelligent. Not all intelligence is book-related. There are many types of intelligence. I believe Sarah Palin is incredibly intelligent. Just as I believe Obama to be.

 

Government spending and corporatism is what got us into this mess, do not try to convince me that government spending will get us out. Smarter spending is implied in my "cutting spending" proposals. I know defense spending is a sacred cow of the Right, it must be cut, as do the cows on the left. Every government organization that cannot justify its existence should be eliminated. Foreign aid must be cut to bare bones. I'm tired of giving money to countries that hate us. We need more energy independence. More nuclear, more drilling. We need comprehensive immigration reform that doesn't have DREAM in it or the word "amnesty". We need to cut taxes and cut spending even more. We need a balanced budget amendment.

 

And if you truly believe that people aren't sick of Obama and that they're only tired of partisan politics, then why didn't they vote out all the Republicans? Then there would be no bickering. The Tea Party movement didn't get to be the massive force that it is because people WEREN'T sick of the Obama-Pelosi Progressive-Liberal Agenda. It has become the behemoth it is precisely because it opposes them and what they stand for. You notice that many RINO's got sent packing because they didn't act partisan enough, not because there is too much partisanship.

 

Here's a great editorial in the WaPost (written by liberals) about why the country is fed up with Obama.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/29/AR2010102905966.html

 

Our divisive president, redux

In a Univision interview on Monday, the president, who campaigned in 2008 by referring not to a "Red America" or a "Blue America" but a United States of America, urged Hispanic listeners to vote in this spirit: "We're gonna punish our enemies and we're gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us."

 

Recently, Obama suggested that if Republicans gain control of the House and/or Senate as forecast, he expects not reconciliation and unity but "hand-to-hand combat" on Capitol Hill.

 

What a change two years can bring.

 

We can think of only one other recent president who would display such indifference to the majesty of his office: Richard Nixon.

 

We write in sadness as traditional liberal Democrats who believe in inclusion. Like many Americans, we had hoped that Obama would maintain the spirit in which he campaigned. Instead, since taking office, he has pitted group against group for short-term political gain that is exacerbating the divisions in our country and weakening our national identity.The culture of attack politics and demonization risks compromising our ability to address our most important issues - and the stature of our nation's highest office.

 

Indeed, Obama is conducting himself in a way alarmingly reminiscent of Nixon's role in the disastrous 1970 midterm campaign. No president has been so persistently personal in his attacks as Obama throughout the fall. He has regularly attacked his predecessor, the House minority leader and - directly from the stump - candidates running for offices below his own. He has criticized the American people suggesting that they are "reacting just to fear" and faulted his own base for "sitting on their hands complaining."

 

Obama is walking a knife's edge. He has said that the 3.5 million "shovel-ready jobs" he had referred to as justification for the passage of the stimulus bill didn't exist - throwing all the Democratic incumbents who had defended the stimulus in their campaigns under the proverbial bus.

 

Although he said, as part of his effort to enact health-care reform, that the health-care mandates were not taxes, now his administration acknowledges in court papers that they are, in fact, taxes.

 

As Election Day approaches, the president and others in the Democratic leadership have focused on campaign finance by moneyed interests - an ancillary issue serving neither party nor country. They have intensified attacks on business groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and individual political operatives such as Karl Rove and Ed Gillespie - insisting that organizations are fronting for foreign campaign money and large secret donations and campaign expenditures. Even the New York Times has noted that "a closer examination shows that there is little evidence" that these organizations have engaged in activities that are "improper or even unusual."

 

It astounds us to hear such charges from the president given that his presidential campaign in 2008 refused to disclose the names of all of its donors, and in past election cycles many liberal groups, such as the Sierra Club and the Center for American Progress, refused to disclose their contributors.

 

To be clear, we favor disclosure of every dollar spent and closing the disclosure loophole that exists as a result of the Citizens United ruling. But it is disingenuous for a president - particularly one whose campaign effectively dynamited the lone beachhead of public financing in American politics - to scream about money pouring in against his political interests.

 

We are also disturbed that the office of the president is mounting attacks on private individuals, such as the founders of the group Americans for Prosperity. Having been forged politically during Watergate - one of us was the youngest member of Nixon's enemies list - we are chilled by the prospect of any U.S. president willing to marshal the power of his office against a private citizen.

 

The president is the leader of our society. That office is supposed to be a unifying force. When a president opts for polarization, it is not only bad politics, but it also diminishes the prestige of his office and damages our social consensus.

 

Moreover, the divisive rhetoric that Obama has pursued can embolden his supporters and critics to take more extreme actions, worsening the spiral.

 

Whatever the caliber of Obama's tactics, they might achieve some short-term success. The Republican Party has offered no narrative or broad solution, and it has campaigned exclusively to take advantage of the negative environment. It contributes merely a promise of a more hostile environment after Tuesday.

 

With the country beset by economic and other problems, it is incendiary that the president is not offering a higher vision for the nation but has instead chosen a strategy of rank division. This is an attempt to distract from the perceived failures of his administration. On issue after issue this administration has acted in ways that are weakening the office of the president.

[DaveCorzineLives! 3]

Palin is underrated. I honestly think people think she's dumb just because she's hot. Having said that, I don't think she should be running for President.

 

Thank Tebow we got that cu*t Pelosi out of there though.

 

 

I think she's dumb because she's dumb.

[Osprey 199]

I think she's dumb because she's dumb.

 

Excellent argument.

[Secretly Space Jesus 670]

Man, I'd forgotten how much I can't stand the Washington Post.

 

It's like they decided to build an entire newspaper around the stereotype of liberals as being weak-willed, petty, and prone to in-fighting.

[Fultz4thewin 2,464]

To be successful, you must be intelligent. Not all intelligence is book-related. There are many types of intelligence. I believe Sarah Palin is incredibly intelligent. Just as I believe Obama to be. fair enough

 

Government spending and corporatism is what got us into this mess I'm on the fence that banks giving housing loans out to everybody and people living beyond their means were the larger cause of this recession., do not try to convince me that government spending will get us out economies are run by three things. 1 spending by people, 2 spending by buisnesses, 3 spending by government. Spending needs to happen from somewhere and the Gov't seems to be the only one willing to right now.. Smarter spending is implied in my "cutting spending" proposals. I know defense spending is a sacred cow of the Right, it must be cut, as do the cows on the left.I agree, that money should be spent on reinvestment into the country Every government organization that cannot justify its existence should be eliminated. This would be difficult. Most organizations can justify their existence Foreign aid must be cut to bare bones. This is hard to accomplish too. It's easy to ignore the implications that this would have on our economy. Other countries do invest in us too. I think a lot of foreign aid could be cut but not a lot of it I'm tired of giving money to countries that hate us. We need more energy independence. use the money we cut from other sources into alternative energy development More nuclear, more drilling. I support drilling in ANWAR but I think we need to set up a plan to be off of oil by a specific date in the future. I don't want to support a "we're drilling more so lets ignore our problems" type of strategy.We need comprehensive immigration reform We'll I think political amnesty is important. I think illegal immigration basically ****s on all the people who want to enter our country through the proper channels. I don't understand how anyone could be "pro-illegal immigration".that doesn't have DREAM in it or the word "amnesty". We need to cut taxes and cut spending even more. we can't cut taxes. Now's not the time.We need a balanced budget amendment.

 

And if you truly believe that people aren't sick of Obama and that they're only tired of partisan politics, then why didn't they vote out all the Republicansbecause people tend to vote on social issues. They still identify with conservative ideology. ? Then there would be no bickering. The Tea Party movement didn't get to be the massive force that it is because people WEREN'T sick of the Obama-Pelosi Progressive-Liberal Agenda The Tea party doesn't really represent America as a whole. The majority of them kinda jump on specific talking points and don't really understand the implications of what they are saying (like the majority of people) . It has become the behemoth it is precisely because it opposes them and what they stand for. You notice that many RINO's got sent packing because they didn't act partisan enough, not because there is too much partisanship. which is a problem that is going to cause more issues for this country. You can't be a moderate anymore because that gets you out of office. The only way to keep power is to float towards extremism

 

Here's a great editorial in the WaPost (written by liberals) about why the country is fed up with Obama. I don't take much from opinion articles. That is just two people's beliefs. That doesn't explain how he's the worst president since FDR (who was a great leader BTW) Opinion articles can't be considered factual because I should be able to find an article right now refuting your point.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/29/AR2010102905966.html

 

Our divisive president, redux

[Fultz4thewin 2,464]

I'm going to counter with this:

 

If there is a hidden message in the election, it's one that we, in our recent book, Winner-Take-All Politics, call the "dirty little secret" of political science: most voters pay little attention to what happens in Washington and have only the vaguest sense of what is happening there. Most are completely unaware of how the filibuster has been used relentlessly to block action on the economy, and a majority mistakenly believes that the astonishingly unpopular TARP legislation passed under Obama, when in fact in was signed by George W. Bush.

We are taught to believe that voters call the shots. And they often do. Yet the vote is a blunt, heavy weapon -- one that voters barraged with negative ads and misleading messages, without strong guidance from grassroots organizations, often wield with little awareness of or regard for the collateral damage that will result. In this case, the damage is likely to be the crippling of goals and policies that most Americans continue to support.

 

One salient example sums up the whole: Republicans' big gains came with older voters -- in part because they were frightened by GOP attacks on the health care bill. Yet Republican budget blueprints -- from Paul Ryan's "Roadmap for America's Future" to the GOP "Pledge to America" -- mean even bigger cuts in Medicare and the revival of the GOP's mothballed plans for partial privatization of Social Security and Medicare. Ask older Americans whether they would like to trash their cherished programs in return for massive new tax cuts for the richest of the rich, and the answer will be a resounding no. Only on election day, a strong majority of older Americans, in effect, said yes.

 

In John Steinbeck's Grapes of Wrath, perhaps the most memorable line was uttered by an angry farmer about to lose his home (sound familiar?). Enraged and despairing but unable to pinpoint blame for his terrible loss, he asks, "Who can we shoot?" That's what voters were asking in 2010, and most had no clearer idea than the farmer of where responsibility for their plight lay.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jacob-s-hacker-and-paul-pierson/giving-the-keys-back-to-t_b_778419.html

[Osprey 199]

One big misconception that Democrats had this election cycle is that the Tea Party is a fringe movement that doesn't reflect the American people. I believe this is wrong. I think the election results speak for themselves.

 

In a different direction, if you are overweight, what is the best solution to get back to a reasonable size? Eat less. Well our government is ridiculously obese and bloated and the only way to shrink it is to give it less to eat, our tax dollars. Cut taxes, cut spending even more. Also, it will be incredibly hard for many government organizations to justify themselves. Look in the Constitution. If there is no expressly stated justification for your department at the federal level, then you're gone. I know this sounds radical, but I believe it would be in the country's best interest to give power back to the states.

 

And that article you posted was written by liberals for a liberal website. Find me a conservative downplaying the election who is Pro-Obama.